Your search for
Section 32
returned 8 results.
-
James Davis and Circular Head Council
On 21 November 2024, Mr James Davis submitted an assessed disclosure application to Circular Head Council (Council) under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act). Mr Davis requested information related to the proposed northern and western boundary consolidation and lease expansion of Stanley Caravan Park.
Council issued a decision to Mr Davis in three parts, redacting some information and releasing the remainder. Mr Davis sought internal review and then external review when a decision was not provided within the statutory timeframe. This request was accepted and Council was directed to provide better reasons for decision under s47(1)(n) of the Act. In these additional reasons it advised that it relied on exemptions under ss32, 36 and 37 of the Act.
Mr Davis only sought external review regarding Council’s use of exemptions under ss32 and 37 in a lease agreement, and whether Council’s search for information was sufficient.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s32 did not apply;
- exemptions claimed by Council pursuant to s37 should be varied; and
- Council’s search for information was sufficient.
James Davis and Circular Head Council (PDF, 331.3 KB)
-
Heidi Sandwell and City of Hobart
Ms Sandwell is a representative of the accommodation booking platform Airbnb. On 24 July 2023, Ms Sandwell requested a range of information related to the City of Hobart’s (Council’s) decision to increase the rates payable for short stay accommodation in the Hobart municipal area.
This application was subject to various delays, however Council eventually determined to refuse aspects of Ms Sandwell’s application under s19. Council also decided that some requested information was exempt from disclosure pursuant to ss31, 32, 35, 38, 40, and 41 of the Act. Ms Sandwell sought external review.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- Council was not entitled to rely on s19 to refuse Ms Sandwell’s application;
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss31, 32 and 35 should be varied; and
- exemptions claimed pursuant to ss38, 40 and 41 were not made out.
Heidi Sandwell and City of Hobart (PDF, 388.2 KB)
-
Damien Matcham and Brighton Council
Mr Damien Matcham has a keen interest in the governance of Brighton Council (Council). On 10 April 2024, Mr Matcham submitted an assessed disclosure application to Council under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) requesting a broad range of information, most of which was related to the expenditure of public money by Council.
After assessing information responsive to Mr Matcham’s application, Council decided that some of the information requested was exempt from disclosure pursuant to ss32 and 36 of the Act.
Mr Matcham sought an external review of Council’s decision by the Ombudsman, who determined that:
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s32 were affirmed; and
- exemptions claimed pursuant to s36 were varied.
Damien Matcham and Brighton Council (PDF, 253.4 KB)
-
Malcolm Gardam and Devonport City Council
On 22 May 2022, Mr Malcolm Gardam made an application for assessed disclosure under Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Devonport City Council. He sought information regarding lease agreements and contracts between Council and key stakeholders in relation to the Living City development in the Devonport area.
On 24 June 2022, Council issued a decision to Mr Gardam. No documents were released and information was claimed to be exempt under ss32 (closed meetings of council) and 37 (business affairs of a third party).
Mr Gardam sought internal review. The internal review decision affirmed Council’s original decision, except for in relation to one contract which was released with redactions.
On 3 August 2022, Mr Gardam sought external review. The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to ss32 and 37 of the Act were not made out.
Malcolm Gardam and Devonport City Council (PDF, 326.3 KB)
-
Malcolm Gardam and Devonport City Council
On 11 September 2020, Mr Malcolm Gardam made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Devonport City Council (Council). He sought information regarding the lease agreement between Council and Providore Place (Devonport) Pty Ltd.
On 8 October 2020, Council issued a decision to Mr Gardam. No documents were released but some responses were provided to matters raised by Mr Gardam. Information was claimed to be exempt under ss31 (legal professional privilege), 32 (closed meetings of council) and 36 (personal information). He sought internal review and Council issued an internal review decision on 22 October 2020. This decision affirmed Council’s first decision in full.
Mr Gardam then sought external review. Council advised during the external review process that it now relied on s37 (information relating to the business affairs of a third party) instead of s32 in relation to some documents.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to s31 were upheld;
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to ss32 and 36 were varied;
- Exemptions claimed pursuant to s37 were not made out; and
- Information identifying parties to leases was to be redacted by agreement between the parties.
Malcolm Gardam and Devonport City Council (PDF, 295.9 KB)
-
Malcolm Gardam and Devonport City Council
On 21 November 2019, Mr Malcolm Gardam made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 to Devonport City Council (Council). He sought information relating to the manner in which public funds had been used by Council regarding ‘The Living City Project’. Council issued a decision on 17 December 2019 which refused the application in full, on the basis that it considered the information exempt due to it relating to information related to closed meetings of council (s32).
Mr Gardam applied for internal review and a further decision was issued, which affirmed the original decision. Mr Gardam then sought external review of Council’s decision.
The Ombudsman determined that exemptions claimed pursuant to s32 were not made out.
Malcolm Gardam and Devonport City Council (PDF, 184.5 KB)
-
Geoffrey Swan and Huon Valley Council
On 18 October 2021, Mr Geoffrey Swan made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 to the Huon Valley Council (Council). He sought information relating to the investigation into the recruitment process of Council’s new General Manager, commissioned following controversy regarding the way Council managed a conflict of interest that arose during that process. Council issued a decision on 13 October 2021 to refuse the application in full, on the basis that it considered the information exempt due to it relating to:
- legal professional privilege (s31); and
- information related to closed meetings of council (s32).
Mr Swan then sought external review of Council’s decision.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- Council’s use of s31 was varied;
- Council’s use of s32 was varied; and
- Information was found to be exempt pursuant to s35 (internal deliberative information).
Geoffrey Swan and Huon Valley Council (PDF, 193.9 KB)
-
Robert Vellacott and Devonport City Council
In October 2018, Mr Robert Vellacott made an application for assessed disclosure under the Right to Information Act 2009 (the Act) to the Devonport City Council seeking information about the Providore Place development (now re-named Market Square Pavillion). Council released a decision which provided some explanation of details regarding Council expenditure and contributions to the project, but refused under ss32 and 37 of the Act to provide the majority of information sought, including the signed lease agreement between it and Providore Place Devonport Pty Ltd, any amendments to that lease, and individual figures for fit-out of tenancies. This decision was affirmed on internal review on 24 December 2018. Mr Vellacott sought external review of the exemptions applied to the information and whether a sufficient search for information responsive to his request had been made by Council.
The Ombudsman determined that:
- Exemptions claimed by Council pursuant to s32 of the Act were varied, as the signed lease agreement was not exempt;
- Exemptions claimed by Council pursuant to s37 of the Act were upheld; and
- There had been a sufficient search for relevant information by Council.
Robert Vellacott and Devonport City Council (PDF, 258.6 KB)